> On 11 February 2010 05:33, Liz <[email protected]> wrote: >> Haven't got far through the judgement so far but this sounds quite >> clear. >> 7. >> The Copyright Act does not protect facts, ideas or information contained >> in a >> work, to ensure a balance is struck between the interests of authors and >> those >> in society: IceTV [2009] HCA 14; 254 ALR 386 at [28] and the cases cited >> therein. The Copyright Act does not provide protection for skill and >> labour >> alone: IceTV [2009] HCA 14; 254 ALR 386 at [49], [52], [54] and [131]. >> and 8. >> The Copyright Act protects the particular form of expression of the >> information: >> (but not if it is computer generated, it must have an author) > > The majority of all OSM data has identifiable authors. > > Also there is debate over the creativity, the vector information may > not be protected but meta information may be deemed a creative work, > and without a court case it's merely speculation. > > In any case Australia is just late to the game, these sorts of > decicions have already been made in other jurisdictions and this is > exactly the reason why some want ODBL. > The judge suggested that database protection laws should be considered by Parliament.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
